wednesday1 Posted December 18, 2012 Share Posted December 18, 2012 The 90 day consultancy period of time before companies employing more than 100 people can make redundancies has been cut from 90 days to 45 days. Surely the government should be helping to create conditions for firms to take on more workers rather than trying to make it easier for them to cut jobs. Where is the 're-straining influence'() of the Lib-Dems in all of this? http://www.bbc.co.uk/go/em/fr/-/news/uk-20768345 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tinfoilhat Posted December 18, 2012 Share Posted December 18, 2012 My initial thought was its a bad idea. After a bit of thought though it could actually work better, particularly for the small business. A company with nothing in the order books for 90 days might need to lay staff, but an awful lot can happen in 45 days. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeX Posted December 18, 2012 Share Posted December 18, 2012 My initial thought was its a bad idea. After a bit of thought though it could actually work better, particularly for the small business. A company with nothing in the order books for 90 days might need to lay staff, but an awful lot can happen in 45 days. this only covers companies with more than 100 employees though. plus I would like to pint out that the information being quoted by the unions is kinda misleading. They imply that employers can now get rid of staff in 45 days, that is incorrect as you still have your notice period after the 45 days. In reality most people will have approx 75 days from the point where they know their job is in danger and when they finally leave their employer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wednesday1 Posted December 18, 2012 Author Share Posted December 18, 2012 My initial thought was its a bad idea. After a bit of thought though it could actually work better, particularly for the small business. A company with nothing in the order books for 90 days might need to lay staff, but an awful lot can happen in 45 days. On a personal note I have had the misfortune to have been in such a situation, 90 days is not a great deal of time for an employee to come to terms with a potential redundancy situation, apply for jobs etc. I was lucky as I managed to find another job,but others were not so fortunate. But on a more general note, in many businesses in the downturn of recent years, the 90 day period has been used for management and unions to work together on cost reduction programmes which enabled businesses to save money in ways other than laying off workers in the usual knee-jerk fashion. This was one of the reasons given, a few years ago for unemployment not going up by as much as many thought it would, when for many businesses demand 'dropped off a cliff'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeX Posted December 18, 2012 Share Posted December 18, 2012 On a personal note I have had the misfortune to have been in such a situation, 90 days is not a great deal of time for an employee to come to terms with a potential redundancy situation, apply for jobs etc. I was lucky as I managed to find another job,but others were not so fortunate. But on a more general note, in many businesses in the downturn of recent years, the 90 day period has been used for management and unions to work together on cost reduction programmes which enabled businesses to save money in ways other than laying off workers in the usual knee-jerk fashion. This was one of the reasons given, a few years ago for unemployment not going up by as much as many thought it would, when for many businesses demand 'dropped off a cliff'. I totally agree, 90 days is preferable and I see no reason why they are cutting it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sarah_s Posted December 18, 2012 Share Posted December 18, 2012 45 days is a hell of a long time and is still generous. In my younger days I was sacked at a moments notice, and when working for agencies in 90s you had to ring up one day for hours the next day (if any). I'm not sure if this is the case still. I'm now self employed with a few workers, and if they are not up to the job they get booted onto the dole. 45 days is still 6 weeks to find yourself another job. If you choose to sit there waiting for your end then more fool you, people these days need a bit of backbone, the time for mollycuddling is in the past. Yes, its been done to me when I was younger (instant sackings), it keeps you on your toes. When I was younger, the male staff (trainees) would get a clip around the ear if they did not work fast enough ---------- Post added 18-12-2012 at 21:33 ---------- I totally agree, 90 days is preferable and I see no reason why they are cutting it. Get rid of the poor staff. 45 days is long enough to search for another job Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stan Tamudo Posted December 18, 2012 Share Posted December 18, 2012 45 days is a hell of a long time and is still generous. In my younger days I was sacked at a moments notice, and when working for agencies in 90s you had to ring up one day for hours the next day (if any). I'm not sure if this is the case still. I'm now self employed with a few workers, and if they are not up to the job they get booted onto the dole. 45 days is still 6 weeks to find yourself another job. If you choose to sit there waiting for your end then more fool you, people these days need a bit of backbone, the time for mollycuddling is in the past. Yes, its been done to me when I was younger (instant sackings), it keeps you on your toes. When I was younger, the male staff (trainees) would get a clip around the ear if they did not work fast enough ---------- Post added 18-12-2012 at 21:33 ---------- Get rid of the poor staff. 45 days is long enough to search for another job Is that what you or the budgie thinks? Sheffield Wed will win this match 3-1. Our budgie sucessfully predicted that Bristol City would win 3-2 last week, so we are going with his prediction. We put 2 sets of cards onto the floor (numbered 1 to 6), we say "Sheffield Wednesday v Bristol City", we put the budgie on the floor and he turns over the one card on one side (today Sheffield Wed got 3) and then runs over to the over side and turns over one of the other cards (Barnsley got number 1). He got last weeks Sheff Wed score right, but he wasn't successful with todays united match, he predicted a 1 - 0 win for Tranmere, so got that one wrong Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeX Posted December 18, 2012 Share Posted December 18, 2012 Get rid of the poor staff. 45 days is long enough to search for another job presumably you would know if the staff member was poor at their job well in advance of the time frame that entitles them to any form of employment protection anyway. so you can get ride when ever you like, you just have to give them their notice period. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I1L2T3 Posted December 18, 2012 Share Posted December 18, 2012 I totally agree, 90 days is preferable and I see no reason why they are cutting it. I guess one reason is that it will allow companies in trouble to trim down more rapidly. The flipside is that it is almost certain to be abused. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gnvqsos Posted December 18, 2012 Share Posted December 18, 2012 Boy are n't people predictable in their responses.Some responses have been so extreme they seem like spoofs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now